dSLR + One Lens

<p>For the purpose of discussion...<br>

When it comes to travel, and travel-photography, there are just a multitude of questions. It really doesn't matter if you're going to the Antartic, India, Europe or South America, or doing a 5 day driving vacation to another state or country, the questions that are generally about the same with regard to (1) what gear should I carry, (2) I have the following camera and lenses, would you recommend I take everything, and so on.<br>

It really can be a mind-boggler trying to figure out what to take and what to leave behind. From my own personal experience, there is always the dreaded feeling that what I need "THAT" lens, and so I should take it along. So you end up taking way more than you should have and really, for all practical reasoning, you sort of didn't enjoy your vacation / tour because of all the hear you lugged around, and found that perhaps having one decent lens would have been enough.<br>

For instance, when I went on a famly vacation last year to a Mexican oceanside resort, I decided I would leave behind the dSLR and get a compact camera that I could capture my pictures in RAW, as I tend to do a lot of procesing, and also have the capability to shoot in Manual Mode. To make a long story short, I chose the Sony RX100-II, which, at the time was the latest model out, and thought it would suit my needs the best. And when the 7 day trip was done, I had captured well over 4000 shots. So I couldn't be happier with my choise of that compact camera, at least for the purpose of a 'family vacation'.<br>

Now, if I'm going to Europe, or visiting my Mother-Land (India), I would definitely take along my dSLR, and also the RX100-II as a backup. Well, that takes care of the dSLR body, but what about a lens. I have the holy trinity of Nikon lenses, and then some. But, it's simply not possible to take along everything, esp. the Sigma 150 OS (macro), or the Tamron 150-600... No way. My largest bag would get filled, and be overweight to take on board an airplane; so what do I leave behind and what do I take along?<br>

With all that dilemma, I think for my purpose, it's best to get a good range zoom. It certainly will not provide me with low light capabilities, or the wide angle of my Nikon 14-24, but it will give me decent pictures... there are of course numerous lenses available in the Nikon / Canon / Sony / Pentax lineup; For me, it would be the Nikon 28-300mm (full frame); so for me, it would be the D800E + 28-300, RX100-II, a dedicated off camera flash / cord / compact diffuser, extra batteries, plenty of CF & SD cards, and a compact laptop (MS Surface Pro 3 or 13.3" laptop... plenty of choices), along with a 2TB WD Passport hard drive to hold ebooks, movies, shows, etc, and plenty of room for backup of my pictures. <br>

So, for the purpose of discussion, I would like to hear what people like to carry as far as gear, but limit it to one camera (compact camera or dSLR) and <strong>ONE</strong> lens. That's the challenge.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>I made a trip to London and Amsterdam over one week and only carried one SLR and a 35 mm lens, but I was just playing tourist and not taking professional pictures.</p>

<p>I usually take too much, most of which doesn't get used. But my most successful light carry was a 35mm body (film, not digital) with a 35mm lens for 6 months in Europe. I think with my older Nikon DSLR , due to the crop sensor, I'd probably be happy enough lens in the range of 24-28mm, as I really prefer the slightly wider angle of capture.</p>

That's an easy one - my Leica M3, 50mm Summicron, and as much Tri-X as I can carry. It's a combination I'm familiar with and enjoy

shooting, and one that lets me think less about photography and just concentrate more on enjoying the trip.

<p>One reason why I bought a 36-360mm (EFL) zoom was that it would give me much range in a single lens. But my older zoom, 28-108mm, is faster and optically better. Either option is a compromise.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>D800E + 28-300, RX100-II</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So, you can take two cameras and one lens (actually two) and we have to limit ourselves to</p>

<blockquote>

<p>one camera (compact camera or dSLR) and <strong>ONE</strong> lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seems hardly fair. Besides, taking a 28-300 isn't so much a limitation as hedging your bets. Why one would need to combine that superzoom with a D800E is a question best not pondered too much.<br /> <br />OK, I play anyhow. A recent trip to Germany had me carry a D700 and the Sigma 35/1.4. Next time, I might take a D7100 with the 80-400 AFS. I've done D60 and 16-85 VR. I'd be perfectly happy to take a vacation to any European city and carry nothing else but the D700 and the 16-35 VR. I would have to break the one lens rule if I were to take the Sony A7 - two lenses would be a must in that case: 21 and 90. The trick simply is not to mind the shots that you can't take but focus on the ones you can.</p>

<p>I've given up on small sensor compacts a long time ago - it doesn't even matter that they could shoot RAW - the quality of the pixels just isn't good enough to allow for much processing. For myself, I draw the line at APS-C - anything smaller doesn't exist for me. Just a couple of days ago, I purchased a small compact camera with an APS-C sensor and a fixed 18mm lens - the Ricoh GR. It's going to be the camera I want to carry around with me as much as possible. I take the fact that it has a prime lens as a challenge rather than a limitation. <br /> Together with the GR, my most compact travel kit would include the Sony A7 with 21 and 90 lenses. Still a lot lighter and more compact than a D800E with 28-300 ;-)</p>

<p>FWIW, my wife has done F100 with 24-120 for years.</p>

<p>This is precisely what the zooms in the circa 17mm to 85mm are for on the APS-C cameras, and the circa 24mm to 105mm on 35mm-sensor cameras are for.<br>

There are better lenses out there, but none that are so good at the "one lens" level for compact shooting.<br>

Throw in a lighter weight 70-200mm, if you can find one, and you're pretty much ready for most anything.</p>

<p>The trip my wife and I took to Alaska for 2 weeks in 2008 was my dream vacation to photograph everything I could. I took all my gear, including 3 DSLR bodies and several lenses - photography was the purpose of the trip. But when we went to Hawaii last summer, it was my wife's dream vacation, and photography was only incidental to the trip. So I took just a D7000 with a 16-85 and battery grip, and confined my shooting to what could be done with that rig.</p>

<p>I have walked with a cane for 15 years, and use a tripod or monopod 100% of the time. I didn't want that kind of hardware to intrude on the Hawaii trip, so I did some hunting. I found an adjustable hiking pole at a local Sportsman's Warehouse that worked perfectly, allowing me to use it in place of my cane whenever we needed to walk. It cost me about $30, has a knob on top for holding it in my palm almost like a cane (never used it that way), and that knob unscrews to reveal a 1/4-20 thread to which I could have attached the camera. I never used the screw thread - I found it quite satisfactory to rest the camera on the knob in low light. So my ersatz monopod-cane plus a DLSR with a good zoom got me all the photos I wanted.</p>

<p>Sorry, we have different styles. - At 570+x frames / day (IDK if I ever shot that much!) I would consider myself "seriously photographing" & bring appropriate gear. - I can't see an advantage in using a P&S at that intensity. <br>

An imaginable single lens single cam vacation would be CV15mm on M3 or LTM body guestimated 2days per roll.<br>

I will never buy a "endless" tourist zoom. I am also not very likely to buy the heavy pro zooms. <br>

I see a chance to take a budged flight (=15kg check in baggage) to somewhere with moderate full gear, in my case a pair of Fujis (690g) with consumer zooms (570g) and depending on circumstances either a kit of adaptable dispensable primes (like 24 50 135mm nonames or a Jupiter 9) intended mainly as backup for the zooms or the more treasured Leica gear + M on X adapter. - I'll cheap out on the Laptop end: a dispensable 10" is all I really need.</p>

<p>For me, I guess for the most part, if the choices were 16-xx versus 18-xx, I'd go for the 16-xx, if restricted to a single lens, on an aps-c body (or the 24-xx vs 28-xx on full frame). If I could add a lens or two, then the choices might change. I took an NEX-6 and 16-50 to Italy. Well suited to our trip. "We" didn't want to deal with a lot of gear and the type of shooting I do and the places we went, it did pretty well. But I agree that the restrictions to one body/lens lends itself to the traditional dslr or mirrorless body and a good midrange zoom. </p>

<p>Notwithstanding the camera/body I took, other trips, other places, other subject matter, other modes of travel and other budget, I might have gone with something else. Also, since most of our trips are by car in the US, I'm far more likely to not restrict myself to a single body/lens.</p>

Just to be contrary I'm going with a Fuji X100.

Canon 5DIII + 24-105mm f/4 = my walk around combo for short trips.

Of course I tend to carry a lot more gear, but this the essence when I am limited.

<p>Leica M240 and Leica 28mm. Travel=compact.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

So far I have taken one of Sony A700 or A900 camera with one of Minolta 50 mm f/1.7, 35 mm f/2, and Tamron 90 mm f/2.8. I didn't, & don't, worry about the images that could have been taken with lenses not with me.

<p>It's not really a challenge, the challenge is in your mind and, to follow up what parv says, having less just means there are shots you can't take. So what? Millions have probably taken the shot already: concentrate on something newer and more unusual. Taking fewer junk images makes sorting and processing the fewer shots easier and less time consuming. I would take the Canon FF with 24-70 f2.8, but if pushed to make it small, I would take the Canon with 35, 40, or 50/1.4 depending how I felt. The 35 has IS so that would work the best when the light dimmed, but I prefer a 50 angle of view. For small size nothing can beat the 40mm f2.8. So the ultimate choice would depend on how small I wanted the kit to be. I'd probably take the 40mm.</p>

I missed to note earlier: I would have liked to take Minolta 80-200 mm f/2.8 HS as the only lens some times, despite being the heaviest, but it is not viable due to its longest minimum focus distance (among all of my lenses) of 1.8 m|5.9 ft. When I do bring this zoom lens, then Minolta 35 mm and/or 50 mm lens come(s) along.

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=323291">Dieter Schaefer</a> - the reason for the D800E + possible 28-300 (I don't own this lens) consideration is that I my D800E is what camera body I happen to own. I have Nikkor 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 VR II, 85 f/1.4, etc... I like covering all my bases in terms of focal range, but in the end, when the time comes, I may opt. for the 14-24 and 24-70 combo, and have the Sony RX100-II, as a backup, in case for some odd reason, and it happens, the D800E fails, or I drop it, or gets stolen... I keep the RX100-II in in my wife's baggage.</p>

<p>Since you are a nikon shooter, look at the 24-120/4. It will blow the doors off of the 28-300 optically and is faster. For times where I cannot carry the holy trinity (14-24, 24-70 and 70-200), this is my go to walk around lens.</p>

<p>It really depends. <br>

For me I do scapes so a single lens would be a consumer speed 18-35mm Nikon. I very seldom do portrait and stuff like that, I mostly walk around enjoy myself get vantage points and revisit at sunrise and sunset. Or maybe sunset only in city travel as sunrise is too early so builidngs still dark. </p>

<p>However I don't get the general shots that would be a walkabout 35mm or a 24mm like the first post/poster. It allows you to walk around more discreetly if that is actually possible but more so .. take a shot crossing the busy road in Tokyo, HKG or NYC etc. Those are maybe the memory shots. </p>

<p>Not sure about a 70-200mm it is a nice lens to have at home at least but on travel I might revert to a single 85mm. But this would be the last of the 3. </p>

<p>As a first but only lens for me it is a 18-35mm for scapes that I do. Many times I walk inside a gallery / museum and not take a shot or I just walk around the city and again not take a shot. I guess I am that tripod guy at dawn or the golden hour. </p>

<p>You've hit on the right combination: minimal DSLR, secondary camera, some supplemental gear. I came to the same conclusion over 30 years of traveling with cameras, lenses, and a tripod. </p>

<p>Among the combinations I've tried:</p>

<ul>

<li>digital p&s, Fuji 120 rangefinder</li>

<li>two mobile phones (1 for calls, one as camera)</li>

<li>digital p&s, mobile phone</li>

<li>Pentax K20D w/40mm pancake lens, mobile phone</li>

<li>Pentax *ist-D w/kit zoom</li>

<li>Fuji X100s, mobile phone</li>

</ul>

<p>For convenience and the ability to blend in with the natives (stipulating that that's possible), my best choice is bring just my mobile phone. It's liberating. I don't have to worry about theft as much as the guy with the DSLR because I have the same camera that everyone else does, including the thieves. I did that on a trip to Germany and got decent photos that I could print up to about 4x6.</p>

<p>On a trip to London, I tried using just a digital p&s plus a mobile phone. That worked out well, too.</p>

<p>In the last year, I've taken two trips with the K20D and the Pentax 40mm pancake lens. My supplementary camera was my mobile phone. This combination worked well in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominica">Dominica</a> but not so well in Paris. In Dominica, I hiked and I drove. When hiking I didn't need spontaneous access to the camera, so it could stay in my backpack. When I was driving, it could stay in a bag on the floor. I took equal numbers of pictures with the K20D and with my mobile phone. In Paris, I felt like I had to hide the camera in my messenger bag. I wanted to blend in more, to look less like a tourist. It wasn't so easy to get the camera out if I wanted it spontaneously. Also, I noticed the weight of the camera more in Paris. I don't know why. I took more pictures with my mobile phone.</p>

<p>While I love the K20D, when I travel I often wish for a camera a light as the Pentax *ist-D I once had. Together with the kit zoom it was good enough.</p>

<p>My experience in Paris led me to the idea of a lightweight travel camera. I bought a Fuji X100s as my travel camera. My mobile phone remains the supplementary camera. I sometimes bring a Manfrotto Super Clamp to use as an impromptu tripod. I've used this combination daily since purchase. The camera lives in my messenger bag or backpack or whatever I'm carrying things in. I'm seriously considering giving up my DSLR and all of its lenses. The Fuji is that good.</p>

<p>For backing up my pictures on travel, I've found that a tablet computer like the Google Nexus 7 along with thumb drives, an SD card reader, and the right cables is a decent, lightweight solution.</p>

<p>I would not choose to travel with a dslr and one lens. I might decide not to photograph at all on a trip (been to Rome twice and yet to make a single exposure) but if I'm going to photograph I'm going to be equipped to do so decently in my own terms. Materially, all my photography is carried out whilst travelling and there's no justification to own anything to use purely at home.</p>

<p>So I have no debates about what to take. I take everything I own. One dslr body , 3 L zooms, a few filters and grads and some of the usual bits, cards and batteries ; all in a medium shoulder bag that is permanently packed and ready to go; which I'm prepared to carry all day when I need to, and which weighs 6kg. OK I lied- I have a spare dslr body that travels in my suitcase and doesn't emerge from one trip to the next. And I have one tripod and one head. Otherwise, if it doesn't fit in the bag I don't own it. If it makes the bag heavier I don't buy it. Everything I own fits in that one bag. </p>

<p>That said nearly 70% of my work is made on a 24-105 zoom on a FF body. </p>

<p>In general I'd rather ( though reluctantly) change to a smaller lighter system than reduce lens coverage and reach, if I were forced to reduce weight or bulk.</p>

<p>DAvid Henderson - just guessing that you are a young and fit fellow. Back in the day, when I was so described I carried everything with me as well for the "just in case" moment. At my current age, that no longer happens. When I travel, I pack with an eye toward what I might need most and ruthlessly cull out the just in case gear.<br /> If I expect to use my D3s with a 24-120 lens for 70% of my shooting (as you indicate that you do,) I would rather be able to carry that kit with me at all times with perhaps a wider prime and know that I will have the gear to shoot 70% (90% if I have a 20mm/2.8 in my pocket). Packing all of my gear and having it on my shoulder or back at all times simply does not work for non-paid photography. I have come to grips that there may be shots that my 80-400 might have nailed, but I am not hauling that monster with me for the occasional great op. <br /> I should also add that there is always a flash in my vest (and a second body always in the car or hotel in case of failure of primary), but I have been known to leave full height legs at home unless I am planning to shoot macros, etc. I have found that in deference to my age, I can make do quite nicely with a solid Leica tabletop tripod and ballhead. Will that work as well as my full sized support? Of course not, but generally there is always something nearby upon which I can prop the tabletop. <br /> At the end of the day, what is "best" will depend on individual preferences and what one is willing (or must) give up.</p>

<p>Oh - and I have a second system (NEX 7 with 2 small sized zooms covering 24 - 105mm) that is physically quite small and lightweight that I won't hesitate to carry on a vacation trip if I know that the weight of even the D3s and 24-120 will be a problem.</p>

<p>Eric.. You guess wrong. Many people my age are retired, and whilst I do use a gym, I'm not particularly fit. Indeed my point is that by controlling what I own I can give myself a simple, manageable life without carrying the kitchen sink. I don't carry stuff "just in case". I carry stuff that experience tells me I'll use productively. </p>

<p>I envy you.</p>

<p>One of the things that may come into play in the future (well, it's here already), for me, is making use of mirrorless cameras. Sony is already producing some very capable models, that some pros are using for their travel photography. I may soon adopt. <br>

Evolve or die.</p>